I would guess that it was for the same reason that you “wasted” your excellent points regarding mental illness. To participate in the discussion, to raise issues that are perhaps not properly considered or analyzed, and to get the ideas out there for use by others. Isn’t that why we’re all here, to learn, teach, discuss, share?
I wasted my points because it spoke directly to the original article, which misrepresented the issue.
Your comment did not logically follow. It did not speak to my comment in any way. It was a good comment(!), just misplaced, and therefore will miss the audience it was intended for.
I would say that your comments were not wasted. Maybe I’m the only person who had never heard it framed as a battle over what can legitimately be called a mental illness, but at least one person has new insight into the issue.
Because describing it that way is a dog whistle. As another has pointed out, if it was really about mental illness why does an untrained/non-medical parent have any input on the policy?
Not everything is a dog whistle and not every policy input needs to be restricted to those with specific expertise. I have no mental health training, so I shouldn’t be making frontline decisions, but that doesn’t change the fact that I want appropriate expertise in place. If that is not policy input, what is it?
if it was really about mental illness why does an untrained/non-medical parent have any input on the policy?
We live in a democracy, so said parents are required to give their input if they are to excise their democratic obligation, just like everyone else. I expect what you really mean is: Why is their input not being shaped by experts?
Perhaps they have not ever considered consulting an expert? Nobody is talking about the issue[1], so it is not like they are going to have someone say: “Hey, you know, you should talk to so-and-so who is an expert in this”. What might seem obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone.
[1] Correction: One person left a single comment about the issue, but as an off-topic reply in a forum thread where it has no relevance, leaving it to not be ever seen by anyone who needs to hear it. Nobody is talking about the issue where the so-called debate is actually taking place.
I would guess that it was for the same reason that you “wasted” your excellent points regarding mental illness. To participate in the discussion, to raise issues that are perhaps not properly considered or analyzed, and to get the ideas out there for use by others. Isn’t that why we’re all here, to learn, teach, discuss, share?
I wasted my points because it spoke directly to the original article, which misrepresented the issue.
Your comment did not logically follow. It did not speak to my comment in any way. It was a good comment(!), just misplaced, and therefore will miss the audience it was intended for.
I would say that your comments were not wasted. Maybe I’m the only person who had never heard it framed as a battle over what can legitimately be called a mental illness, but at least one person has new insight into the issue.
Because describing it that way is a dog whistle. As another has pointed out, if it was really about mental illness why does an untrained/non-medical parent have any input on the policy?
Not everything is a dog whistle and not every policy input needs to be restricted to those with specific expertise. I have no mental health training, so I shouldn’t be making frontline decisions, but that doesn’t change the fact that I want appropriate expertise in place. If that is not policy input, what is it?
We live in a democracy, so said parents are required to give their input if they are to excise their democratic obligation, just like everyone else. I expect what you really mean is: Why is their input not being shaped by experts?
Perhaps they have not ever considered consulting an expert? Nobody is talking about the issue[1], so it is not like they are going to have someone say: “Hey, you know, you should talk to so-and-so who is an expert in this”. What might seem obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone.
[1] Correction: One person left a single comment about the issue, but as an off-topic reply in a forum thread where it has no relevance, leaving it to not be ever seen by anyone who needs to hear it. Nobody is talking about the issue where the so-called debate is actually taking place.